I really like Dr. Oz's show, and Dr. Oz himself, but I always have to remember that the show is at least as much or more entertainment than good science/sound medical advice. He seems genuinely caring, and definitely charismatic, but neither proves good science or infallibility.

He can be surprisingly "open-minded" to some seriously quacky ideas (with no scientific proof at all behind them - and sometimes even strong research evidence AGAINST), and yet he can also be very oppositional on some topics that have strong (even if arguable) science behind them. I think that is a serious flaw. To be open to new age quackery even when there's no proof or even refuting evidence (which he doesn't mention) behind it, and yet to be strongly opposed to a theory with strong (if arguable) support - seems hypocritical and disingenuous.

Sometimes he's clearly playing "devil's advocate," but sometimes it's hard to tell what his actual position is on the subject (or if he even has one). The show is very entertaining and on whole, informative, but to be taken as "medical gospel" Oh Heck, No!

I read Taubes' book years ago (Good Calories, Bad Calories I think it was called). This guy really does his research and presents a thorough review of scientific studies. I like Dr. Oz, but as Taubes says, I do think we have to consider the variety of body types out there. I think it's evident right here on this site that different plans work for different bodies. Some people find that their fat just melts away on low carb plans while others can stick with a vegan plan and feel great and drop weight.

I thought that Gary Taubes missed several good opportunities to make salient points. He failed to explain how saturated fats are preferable to PUFAs, saying only that trans fats should be avoided. Then he failed to refute the logic behind Dr. Oz’s demonstration of artery-clogging fats when Oz made a tube out of pepperoni and stuffed it with the cheese stick. This is consistent with Oz’s general concept of the relationship between saturated fat and heart disease. (In a previous show, Dr. Oz had made the comment that saturated fat remains solid in the human body, which is ridiculous on at least two fronts: 1) saturated fats become liquid at 98.6 degrees F, and 2) dietary fat does not enter into the bloodstream without first going through a complex digestion system.) Taubes also failed to explain why Total Cholesterol numbers are meaningless and why excessive carbohydrates, rather than fats, are responsible for high triglyceride numbers, which are important. He also failed to talk about rancidity issues in PUFAs that lead to oxidized cholesterol, which is a problem. Finally, Taubes failed to ask Oz why he now approves of coconut oil if saturated fat is so bad for you.

The truth is, regardless of Taube's disregard for fruits and vegetables - cultures that eat the highest amounts of both fruits and vegetables have the least diabetes, hypertension and obesity. My own feeling is that because fruits and vegetables have the lowest caloric density of all foods, folks who eat a ton of them are slimmer and healthier.

I have sat down and read Gary Taubes book, and regardless of what he said on his blog, his preference for a healthy diet is very much centered on carb free animal proteins, with fruits and vegetables added if one can tolerate them (huh??).

I have read that Gary Taubes cherry picks some data and then runs with it. Sorry I sound so grumpy, but I'm angry at myself for wasting over 20 bucks on his book. When will I learn?

The truth is, regardless of Taube's disregard for fruits and vegetables - cultures that eat the highest amounts of both fruits and vegetables have the least diabetes, hypertension and obesity. My own feeling is that because fruits and vegetables have the lowest caloric density of all foods, folks who eat a ton of them are slimmer and healthier.

I have sat down and read Gary Taubes book, and regardless of what he said on his blog, his preference for a healthy diet is very much centered on carb free animal proteins, with fruits and vegetables added if one can tolerate them (huh??).

I have read that Gary Taubes cherry picks some data and then runs with it. Sorry I sound so grumpy, but I'm angry at myself for wasting over 20 bucks on his book. When will I learn?

By the way, which book did you read? GCBC or WWGF? Your approach to Gary Taubes' research is different than mine. For me Taubes laid the foundation and provides the research that explains what processed carbs (breads, crackers, sugar, etc.) do in regards to insulin resistance, weight gain, etc. I don't view Taubes' book as a manual for how I eat, but rather as reinforcement for why I should not eat breads, cereals, crackers, etc. if I want to lose or maintain my weight.

I find a great deal of worth in what he has to say. I eat vegetables, eggs, meat, good oils and fats, and yes, fruits (however, I do limit my fruit intake), and I feel great. My doctor is very supportive of how I have been eating for the past year. I don't eat a plate of meat, cheese, and butter and call it a day. Taubes says people with SEVERE insulin resistance may have to drastically cut carbs, but I don't take that as his recommendation for all.

Would Taubes support eating a huge salad chock full of vegetables and topped with chicken? A pork roast with cabbage, onions, and carrots? Two or three eggs with sliced avocado and tomatoes? A coconut curry soup with peppers, onions, kale, shrimp, and scallops? A grassfed burger (no bun of course) topped with sauteed mushrooms and onions with a huge helping of roasted broccoli? I believe he would, and that's exactly how I eat, and I feel great.

I'm sorry you feel like you wasted your money, as I think there are some important take aways from his book. I bet you would have no problem selling it on ebay.